in the world and the first in the UK, from the then Plymouth Polytechnic 1973-76, 2.1 Honours CNAA now Open University, then spent two years researching at the U. of Bath in relation to 'environmentalism' in the areas of sociology and philosophy of science and of knowledge and the associated economics and politics (before finding my finance withdrawn for radicalism, meeting a French woman on the ferry leaving Ireland one evening and dropping out for a couple of years, then becoming an analyst programmer in London with an MSc from Essex); so although I've never been employed in that field I've been following, and thinking, and preaching to deaf ears for a long time.

without provoking such as a 'nuclear winter'. Finding a way to control volcanic activity, for example.

And some way, also controllable, to adjust chemical balances in the ocean.

This would come, presumably, after having tackled the main problem and having achieved a radical socio-political and economic-financial transformation of all 'globalised' cultures, for as the article says, in the words of McPherson:

... “There’s not much money in the end of civilization, and even less to be made in human extinction.” The destruction of the planet, on the other hand, is a good bet, ... “because there is money in this, and as long as that’s the case, it is going to continue.”...

Make no mistake: what we are witnessing here is an attempt to undo all the progress of the 20th century - the century where for the first time in history ordinary people were given equal political, social and economic rights - and where, after World War II, countries were given equal rights too. The New Advocates of Inequality want to take us back to the middle of the 19th century and accept a world where a small number of countries - and a tiny, fabulously wealthy elite within those countries, have all the power.

It’s an incredibly reactionary and undemocratic project, yet it poses as a modern, democratic one. We can’t say we weren’t warned. At the 1975 Labour Party conference, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson remarked on the extremist policies the Conservative Party under their new leader Margaret Thatcher, were adopting.

At the time, Britain was enjoying the lowest levels of inequality in its history.

Internationally, things were positive too, with the Helsinki Accords signed that year between the USSR and other communist countries and the west, marking the high-water mark of détente. It was the Age of Equality between nations and within nations, but some wanted to change it.

“The political philosophy of a once great Party has now been asserted,” Wilson said of Thatcher’s Conservatives. “Not a claim to unite the nation, but a policy to divide it. We have been told, on impeccable and undeniable authority, that the pursuit of inequality for its own sake is now to become an end in itself. It is now to become the altar, the deity, before which they seek to prostrate themselves - and the country.”

Alas ‘the pursuit of inequality for its own sake’ hasn’t just affected Britain, but many other countries in the world too.

For the sake of the future progress of mankind, we urgently need to return to the democratic, egalitarian and genuinely progressive path we were travelling down before those elitist, reactionary ideologies - neoliberalism and neo-conservatism - took over...

Actually, the US economy only holds together thanks to the Fed. That’s why it can’t withdraw its support. Because without it there would no longer be enough US Treasury Bond buyers at current interest rates, which would climb to unsustainable levels as a result. Without the Fed, real estate would resume its downward spiral. Without the Fed, the stock exchange would plunge.

Therefore, only external events would cause the Fed to bring this policy to an end. A relapse into recession in the United States will weaken the dollar just like in 2007- 2008 (see chart below) and, if the fall is too hard, will require a halt in the accommodative policies to fix the currency: in fact, the United States’ biggest fear is that the dollar loses its reserve currency status and has to submit to the same rules as other currencies (40), which was about to happen in 2008 when the whole world started to doubt the dollar’s solidity.

It could also be domestic policy, with strong scepticism over the Fed’s policy, which could call the printing press into question. Or Ben Bernanke’s successor (whose term of office comes to an end in January 2014) who may consider that, over time, the risks of continuing this policy are too high.

Finally, there could be pressure from the international community wishing to reform the international monetary system in which a weak currency can’t play an important role: yet in continuing its policy once the dollar became a currency just like any other, the Fed would weaken it excessively so it couldn't claim to retain a major role.

Fed support is thus a drug hiding American problems whilst they are getting bigger and will cause the fall to be even more painful. It can’t continue indefinitely without putting the American economy in danger. It’s only a matter of time before it comes to a painful end. The recession which is about to begin, the end of Bernanke’s term of office and the increasingly lively discussions over international monetary system reform; all these factors are coming together to announce the end of US quantitative easing at the beginning of 2014 at the latest.

... Edit to add (from your source, DemReadingDU):

-Financial editor Jeff Berwick: "If they allow interest rates to rise, it will effectively make the U.S. government bankrupt and insolvent, and it would make the U.S. government collapse. . . . They are preparing for a major societal collapse. It is obvious and it will happen, and it will be very scary and very dangerous."

... In his November investment commentary for bond giant Pimco, Mr. Gross asks the "Scrooge McDucks of the world" to accept higher personal income taxes and to stop expecting capital to be taxed at lower rates than labor. As for the IMF, its latest Fiscal Monitor report argues that taxing the wealthy offers "significant revenue potential at relatively low efficiency costs..."

... Taxation is always a sensitive topic and is now more than ever at the center of policy debates around the world. The key challenges are: How can taxation best help bring down debt ratios in advanced economies and respond to mounting spending needs in developing countries? And how can equity concerns be balanced—especially in hard times—with the efficiency that is needed to secure long-term growth?

In practice, consolidation so far has been more reliant on revenue measures than was initially planned. But the options most often chosen have been guided by expediency rather than by a desire to build stronger and fairer tax systems, and they may be storing up problems for the longer term. Tax rates, for instance, have been raised when it would have been preferable to broaden the tax base and introduce new taxes to address environmental concerns or correct financial sector inefficiencies. With a large share of adjustment already behind in many countries but growth prospects still dim, policy design should now focus on addressing long-standing tax distortions and buoying potential growth.

Can countries tax more, better, more fairly? Results reported here show that the scope to raise more revenue is limited in many advanced economies and, where tax ratios are already high, the bulk of adjustment will have to fall on spending. Nonetheless, many (including some with the largest consolidation needs, like the United States and Japan) could still mobilize significant amounts while limiting distortions and adverse effects on growth. Broadening the base of the value-added tax ranks high in terms of economic efficiency (as new findings tend to confirm) and can in most cases easily be combined with adequate protection for the poor. In emerging market economies and low-income countries, where the potential for raising revenue is often substantial, improving compliance remains a central challenge. Recognition that the international tax framework is broken is long overdue. Though the amount is hard to quantify, significant revenue can also be gained from reforming it. This is particularly important for developing countries, given their greater reliance on corporate taxation, with revenue from this taxation often coming from a handful of multinationals.

Scope seems to exist in many advanced economies to raise more revenue from the top of the income distribution (and in some cases meet a nontrivial share of adjustment needs), if so desired. And there is a strong case in most countries, advanced or developing, for raising substantially more from property taxes (though this is best done when property markets are reasonably resilient). In principle, taxes on wealth also offer significant revenue potential at relatively low efficiency costs. Their past performance is far from encouraging, but this could change as increased public interest and stepped-up international cooperation build support and reduce evasion opportunities. Reforming international taxation will be harder, as it must go beyond the control of tax-minimizing tricks to address more fundamental aspects such as the allocation of tax bases across countries and finding better ways to realize mutual gains from closer cooperation in tax matters.

Political constraints can trump even the best-designed tax reform. History shows that meaningful, long-lasting tax reforms have most often been implemented in good times, when buoyant revenues can be used to compensate losers. But they can happen in lean times, too, if carefully attuned to a particular country’s institutional setting and supported by extensive political consensus building and a broad communication strategy. They are certainly increasingly needed in the current, taxing times...

And see much 'rightist' outrage:

... On page 49, the authors said, "The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a 'capital levy' — a one-time tax on private wealth — as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability."

Let’s be clear: That tax would apply to all private wealth on the planet. And it wouldn’t balance budgets but would only bring them down to a slightly more manageable level so that government borrowing and spending could continue without interruption. The levy would have to be implemented rapidly, before the wealthy could react and move their assets, or themselves, out of harm’s way: "The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible … distort behavior..."

... In a wide-ranging speech on the outlook for the continent delivered to the European Economic and Social Committee, Ms Lagarde said a failure to revive investment and employment would not bode well for the future.

"There is a palpable sense of optimism in some quarters that the European crisis is over,'' she said.

"But can a crisis really be over when 12% of the labour force is without a job? When unemployment among the youth is in very high double digits, reaching more than 50% in Greece and Spain? And when there is no sign that it is becoming easier for people to pay down their debts?''

As European finance ministers held a simultaneous meeting to try and reach a way forward on the complex issues surrounding a pan-European banking union, the IMF chief said growth rates and output levels remained well below what they should be.

She said the only durable solution was in "jump-starting'' growth, setting out four priority areas including reviving credit, supporting demand, reducing debt and fostering growth friendly labour markets. "The goal of reform is to break down barriers to growth," she said...

... I am pleased to see that many European countries are leaving recession behind them and the EU economy is being put on a more stable footing; China also has a good report card for its economy.

At the beginning of this year, the tough, complex situation, both domestically and internationally, placed mounting downward pressure on the Chinese economy. Some were predicting, as reported overseas, a hard landing for the Chinese economy and some even claimed it would go bust. We faced up to that pressure and stuck to the policy of not allowing either the deficit to grow or monetary expansion or contraction. Instead, we adopted a holistic approach based on innovative macro-economic management... We generated the internal driving force of economic growth, improved supply and boosted domestic demand through structural adjustment...

... As the world watched closely, the third Plenary Session of the 18th Communist Party of China Central Committee last week adopted a series of decisions aimed at comprehensively deepening reform in China. These decisions will not only speed up China’s social and economic development, but also help address resources and environmental constraints, as well as uneven development between urban and rural areas and among different regions, thus bringing greater prosperity to the Chinese people and creating new opportunities for our relations with the outside world.

Cried a recent headline in the Telegraph. To me, it reads intentionally like an old fashioned report of a war. Wars of any sort are fantastically useful for the elite of the State because wars, better than anything else, encourage people to collapse the State and the Nation together in their minds. Faced with an external enemy it is the State and those who guide it, who marshal our defenses and face the enemy. And so we are encouraged to assume that when the EU and the US meet it will be ‘our side’ fighting for us, against theirs. But will it?

In reality it will be unelected, largely un-named trade representatives supported and surrounded by a legion of lawyers, advisors and lobbyists, nearly all of whom will be recently seconded from or still in the pay of global corporations, who will meet behind closed doors to negotiate in secret. Whose interests will they be fighting for?

They, with the help of a largely supine and grovelling media, will claim to be there for you. They will be decked out in flags and called by the names of our nations or national groupings, such as the EU. But the truth will be otherwise. Behind the national name plate a largely unseen machinery will be almost entirely corporate. Both sides will be there to seek advantage, not for you the people, not for the nations whose flags they use as camouflage , but for the corporations who pay them. The US delegation will seek advantage for US based global corporations and the EU delegation will seek advanage for EU based global corporations. Both sides will be hailed victorious. The real question – very carefully never ever raised by the compliant media – will be who lost? And the answer, studiously unreported, will be the ordinary people of both sides.

The object of the whole endeavour is to roll back soveriegn protections and powers in favour of an ‘unregulated’, unfettered, free market. How can I make such a sweeping claim? Because we have seen the results of over 200 previous Free Trade Agreements which these same people have negotiated and agreed previously. Just think of NAFTA...

Between creation and destruction, the positive and the negative, the 'evil' and the 'good'?

I suggest the answer would have to to with an awareness of one's context, as a social human animal living where one lives at the present point on the path of history ('Good', for example, for whom? For me personally (in my social context), for my family? for the wider community, all humanity, the biosphere itself..?), an awareness for the obtention of which 'good' education and access to information helps but which ultimately, I reckon, depends on maintaining open channels of communication with the bottom of one's heart.

For verily, to revert to an earlier idiom, and from a non-contemporary, but close, account of the words of a self-defined 'Son of Man', the kingdom of heaven lies within you.

Btw, I dislike terms such as 'belief' (or blind faith) that are bandied about: I believe this, I believe that: What does this mean? It means "I'm not prepared to think about it any further". And it probably means you're using the language in an habitual manner with too little attention to accuracy of expression.